The Other House

Kamal - Irvine, 92604, California
Entered on September 17, 2007
Age Group: 30 - 50
  • Podcasts

    Sign up for our free, weekly podcast of featured essays. You can download recent episodes individually, or subscribe to automatically receive each podcast. Learn more.

  • FAQ

    Frequently asked questions about the This I Believe project, educational opportunities and more...

  • Top Essays USB Drive

    This USB drive contains 100 of the top This I Believe audio broadcasts of the last ten years, plus some favorites from Edward R. Murrow's radio series of the 1950s. It's perfect for personal or classroom use! Click here to learn more.

To have the same rights as other nations, the people of my origin have been fighting four undemocratic regimes. These regimes have called them tribal, radical, separatist, and even racist. Surprisingly the international media at time also uses the same pejorative vocabulary of those regimes to describe the assertive faction of our people who seek independence.

I am wondering, if today Indians were still under the British mandate, would they have been called tribal for their fight to end colonialism? If Israelis were still facing the Nazi and hoped for a state of their own to protect them and their heritage, would they have been called radical? If different nations in the East Block were still under Russian mandate and demanded free choice and independence, would they have been called separatists? If the blacks in South Africa still would have been treated as subhuman, would they have called racist for fighting apartheid? Unlikely they would have. Fortunately the world has changed for better in regard to the situation of those nations.

Despite the change in the world, the situation of our people, the largest stateless people in the Middle East, today in 21st century is still worse than the situation of Indians, Israelis, South African blacks, and Eastern European nations during the 20th centuries. It is understandable that the undemocratic regimes in the Middle East do not approve liberty, free choice, and self determination rights. What is not understandable is why the White House, which has supported the change in the World, still thinks our people should be under the mandate of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Maybe it has to do with the vision. Ottoman and Persian empires had double vision when looking at the dominant groups and were colorblind when seeing the disadvantaged ones. They paid for their double vision and colorblindness such a heavy price that their followers lost all their vision.

After an analytical review of the name of the White House, I noticed that it might have problem with vision too. It has always housed presidents that represent the color of the house, which has been a dominant color in the political life of Americans. Maybe the founders of the White House had double vision and were colorblind in the past. Maybe the residents of the house should change the color of the house or take care of their vision so the house houses people with a different color in the future! With change of vision, the White House might also see that the undemocratic regimes in the Middle East need to be changed to federations of Mesopotamian, Anatolian, and Iranian Republics instead of Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Such a vision change could start with simple steps such as a federative division of Iraq, changing the name of Turkey to Anatolia, and modernizing the constitution of Iran so it represent all its nationalities and no specific religion.